SEATTLE--In
an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series
"Evolution" that begins tonight, 100 scientists have declared
that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation
and natural selection to account for the complexity of
life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for
Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy center, compiled
the list of statement signers (attached). Among other things,
the long list may help to answer the contention of designated
spokespeople for the series "Evolution" that "virtually all reputable
scientists in the world" support Darwin's theory. Institute officials
charge that officials of WGBH/Clear Blue Sky Productions have
used that contention to keep any scientific criticism of Darwinism
from being acknowledged or examined in the eight-hour series.
"They want people to think that the only criticism of Darwin's
theory today is from religious fundamentalists," said Discovery
president Bruce Chapman. "They routinely try to stigmatize scientists
who question Darwin as 'creationists'."

Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of
the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage
debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism,"
says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that
as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."
Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed
"A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

Meanwhile, a Zogby Poll released today shows overwhelming public
support--81 percent--for the position that "When public broadcasting
networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present
the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence
against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific
evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent
said "Neither" or "Not sure.")

"Public television producers are clearly at odds with overwhelming
public sentiment in favor of hearing all scientific sides of the
debate," said Chapman, a former Director of the US Census Bureau.
"The huge majorities in the poll cross every demographic, regional
and political line in America." The national sample of 1,202 adults
was conducted by Zogby International from August 25-29. The margin
of error is +/-3.0%.

Discovery Institute commissioned the Zogby poll, though the survey
itself was designed by the Zogby organization. It also included
questions on education and "intelligent design," a theory that
some scientific critics of Darwin support. (That theory makes
no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for
life's origins points to design rather than a process of random
mutation and natural selection.) Discovery Institute last week
also opened a special website (www.reviewevolution.org)
to critique the WGBH/Clear Blue Sky series in a scholarly "Viewer's
Guide." Discovery officials say that the website analyzes all
program segments in the series and has uncovered numerous scientific
and historical errors, exaggerations and omissions. Full results
of the Zogby poll also are available on the website.

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority,
but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated
philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal
of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening
in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate
dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure.
Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific
arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series'
attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious
'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout
the US and from several other countries, representing biology,
physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other
scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities
as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges
and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos,
N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed
to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.

Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover
scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered
only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their "personal
faith stories" in the last program of the series, "What About
God?" According to Discovery's Chapman, "This was almost an insult
to serious scientists. Some of these dissenting scientists are
not even religious. When you watch that last program, you realize
they were wise to refuse to take part in it."

Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University
of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is
time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and
debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where
institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from
being heard."

A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation
and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."